Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
=Provisional categories= Organizations I propose the creation of a supercategory "Organizations" -- this would basically be any group, including governments, corporations, militaries, teams, etc. Form *Supercategory: Category:Organizations -- this category contains all organizations articles in a list **Subcategories can be added at will from the following: ***Category:Governments ***Category:Corporations ***Category:Agencies -- covering both militaries, and governmental sub-agencies ****Category:Military units -- proposed at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions ***additional categories for other groups as they become identified -- i'm not sure if we have enough articles relevant for a Category:Music groups or Category:Sports teams, *** Category:Religions might be a possibility The question about this suggestion is -- should all these articles still be contained in the master category, or should we leave the supercategory containing only articles about "miscellaneous groups" that don't fall into any of the subcategories -- or would it even be preferable to create additional subcategory Category:Miscellaneous groups. Additionally, subcategories of major groups can and will be created upon suggestion and vote here -- once Category:Agencies has been approved, Category:Starfleet, Category:Tal Shiar, etcetera can be contained in it. :I don't recommend putting any articles in Category:Starfleet or any other organization at this level, however, because an additional tree structure must be discussed -- to prevent double listing articles that fall under both '''UFP' and Starfleet.'' There are a lot of organizations that may be deserving of a category heading -- this level will form a major portion of our tree structure if it is approved. Once approved, it will be easy to create multiple categories by writing one sample category makeup -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:49, 26 Mar 2005 (EST) :(I'm not sure where this came from, but it didn't belong with the paragraph prevously attached with it, so I am putting it here.) --Alan del Beccio 06:50, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Subcategories based on military or service organizations, agencies, (Category:Organizations; Category:Agencies; etc), will use the form "NAME personnel". Former members who move on to other exploits may be double categorized. Members of sub-agencies or units that are able to be listed like that should also be categorized like that. -- for example, Spock is both in Starfleet personnel, and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel. *Subcategories based on species should take the form of their list article (people) -- the species name in plural (Category:Vulcans, humans, etc). Hybrids should be double categorized. *Subcategories based on Category:Governments or Category:Regions could take the form NAME citizens or NAME residents, i'm open for suggestions on this one if anyone has a better idea for final terminology. Category:Explosives * As a Sub-categories for Category:Materials. There are Quite a few a listed in "Night Terrors", and elsewhere. A list of course would need to be compiled at some point, first. --Alan del Beccio 10:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC) :* I support this, but we need to figure out what we're gonna do about seperating the materials category from the chemical compounds category and all that jazz before we create this. (i.e. what articles should be in the materials cat, which ones in the chemical compounds, should they be seperate cats rather than one being the sub of the other, etc. Fun times). --From Andoria with Love 08:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC) See also * Category talk:Military personnel * Category talk:Individuals =Suggested categories= In-universe categories Category:Borg technology I'd like to propose a new category called Borg technology, based off my list of Borg technology. As an alternate title, we could use Borg terminology instead (I haven't decided which I like best myself). -- Renegade54 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC) :This should be a subcategory of Category:Technology if named "Borg technology", or of Category:Terminology if named "Borg terminology". -- Renegade54 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC) ::No problem with that (as "Borg technology"), if... it is only used for articles that would otherwise be located at "technology" itself (no starships, for example, because those would already be in the "starships" subcategory of technology), and restricted to articles that describe "Borg-only" technology (for example, no Tractor beam). -- Cid Highwind 20:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC) :Take a look at the list. Everything meets that definition, either Borg-only or originally Borg later used by someone else (like transwarp hubs). The reason I had tractor beam in that list is that the Borg had a different, more sophisticated tractor beam than other species, and that's described in the main tractor beam article. That particular version of the tractor beam is Borg-specific, but, obviously, the article isn't. There are a few entries in my list, as well, that I consider more "Borg terminology" than "Borg technology", like Unimatrix or Trimatrix or First (Borg) or Borg Queen. -- Renegade54 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC) ::I did take a look at that list - that's what made me comment in the first place... ;) Assimilation is a process, not technology; Borg Collective is a designation for a group of beings, not technology; Borg Queen is a'' being, not technology... Cortical implant, Cutting beam, Ocular implant, just to name a few of many, are technology, but not restricted to the Borg. There are many articles on that list that shouldn't be categorized as either "Borg technology" or "Borg terminology", because they really aren't. However, as I said, I wouldn't mind having that category for those articles that really are technology '''and' restricted to the Borg. -- Cid Highwind 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC) :Perhaps there should be a "Category:Borg stuff", with "stuff" being replaced by a more appropriate word, that would encompass all things Borg. -- Renegade54 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC) ::Well, the best title for that would simply be "Borg" (although that title has already been used for something else despite my comments: see Category talk:Borg) - but even then, I'm sure we'd end up with some horrible mess if we started to categorize everything that was also used by the Borg once, but not restricted to them, as "Borg". The Borg aren't that special in the big scheme of things, so we would also need to have "Klingon", "Romulan", and so on. If we did that, we'd end up with a dozen or more categories on something like Tractor beam. I'd still support a "Borg technology" category for Borg-only technology (or, for that matter, a category "Borg X" for every "Borg-only X" that has piled up enough articles here) - but categorizing the way suggested here doesn't sound like a good idea to me. -- Cid Highwind 21:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC) * How about 'Borg terminology, sub of Category:Terminology? --Alan del Beccio 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC) **"Technology" or "Terminology" doesn't really matter here - both should be restricted to the "borg-only" subset of their respective supercategories. That said, I don't really like the "Terminology" category itself, because it is so ill-defined. -- Cid Highwind 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC) * Last try: How about Category:Borg for all things Borg and sub-cat Category:Borg drones for all individuals? --Alan del Beccio 21:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) **Sounds good, support new category and scope change of the old one. Regarding the above discussion, Cat:Borg should obviously still be restricted to things that really are "Borg", not everything that was also used by the Borg. -- Cid Highwind 22:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) **'Support' this last concept. -- Renegade54 23:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC) *One last thought, with the creation of Category:Technology, and re-reading some of what was said above, perhaps we could use a Category:Borg technology, afterall, while still keeping Category:Borg drones for the individuals and Category:Borg as the top category for both, which would then contain everything else that fits in there...such as their conflict with 8472, space designations (which might even be its own category), and other non-drones or technology things? --Alan del Beccio 04:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC) *Make sense to me (I think). I support that. In fact, once I get done cleaning up the category suggestion page, I'll go ahead and create it myself... assuming I don't forget. :) --From Andoria with Love 06:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Technologies With Category:Technology as the supercategory I propose the following, which may or may not make some other categories obsolete. * Category:Communications technology to include everything from viewscreen to telephone to communicator to earpiece and so forth. * Category:Holographic technology w/ sub Category:Holographic programs w/ sub Category:Holograms, this would then be home to articles such as holodeck. * Category:Computer technology to remove computer technology from Category:Computer terminology, or perhaps to make it totally obsolete. * Category:Transporter technology making obsolete Category:Transporter components * Category:Propulsion technology making, in part, Category:Starship components obsolete. * Anything else that helps eliminate the "components" categories. --Alan del Beccio 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Support for all the above. I also support total replacement of Category:Computer terminology with Category:Computer technology, rather than a partial replacement. Would Category:Starship technology work as a replacement for Category:Starship components, perhaps with Category:Propulsion technology as a subcategory? -- Renegade54 19:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :: See, Starship components never turned out the way I intended it. People get so category happy sometimes they just throw things where ever (I'm guilty of this as times, but I do it for tracking purposes until I can get back to it later-- like now). Starship components, I believe, was envisioned to cover the *big* parts of the ship, not the "toys" -- but contain elements like hulls, nacelles, bulkheads, etc-- or at least, things that can be broken down into parts. Anyway, I would almost rather start that portion over from scratch, which is why I thought about only dissecting out the real obvious stuff (Propulsion technology, Transporter technology) and work from there with what's left. --Alan del Beccio 20:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :::Sounds like a good plan to me. :) -- Renegade54 20:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I support this and have created the remaining category, holographic technology. Occupations Occupations (Nov 2005) * In reviewing many of the terms categorized under Category:Titles, I've noticed that many of those listed are (almost) strictly occupations, rather than mere titles. Examples of this include: Archaeology and anthropology officer, astronaut, bartender, Captain's personal guard, Comfort woman, etc -- versus more traditional (and true) titles, such as King, Ambassador, High Commissioner and the like. --Alan del Beccio 08:39, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Comment': Under titles I see (or saw) three different types: ##'Military ranks', like Colonel or Lieutenant, now a category thanks to some courageous individuals. ##'Titles', real titles given to someones name, like Administrator, Governor or Jal. ##'Positions', not really given to your name but an "occupation" you occupy with some authority (like Arbiter of Succession, Records officer, Science officer, Third officer, Captain's personal guard) ##'Occupations', like you suggest which includes bartender or barkeep or maybe Chef (although that is also a title) or even astronaut. * I'm not really suggesting these sub-categories, I'm just saying that "occupations" doesn't really cover it either.--Tim Thomason 15:46, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** Well I'm out of here again for a few days, so I'm not sure what we can do with this, as you have a point about the divisions of this--and at the same time, I really don't think it is appropriate, as it is currently, to have bartender and comfort woman categorized as "titles"-- in fact, I would almost rather see them not categorized at all. I suggest we browse through wikipedia's category structure for ideas. A significantly toned down version of what might be found in might be a good start. --Alan del Beccio 00:35, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::*I say we separate them. Take the titles category and create a sub-cat for military ranks under that cat. Then create an occupations cat and have positions as a sub-cat of that. I suggest this because a rank is a form of title, while one holds a position within an occupation. Make sense? --From Andoria with Love 07:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Professions (Apr 2006) We have some professional categories (Ambassadors, artists, Athletes, Authors, musicians). I would like to propose some new : politicians (ruler, ambassador subcat,...), scientists (from Starfleet and other organizations), engineers (from Starfleet and other organizations), Medical practitioners, merchants, spies. - Philoust123 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC) * See Above --Alan del Beccio 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Occupations (Sept 2006) Mentioned above but never clearly resolved, Category:Occupations (ugh, which I guess is also some peoples hobbies, in some cases) would be the supercategory, to include the subs Category:Ambassadors, Category:Artists, Category:Athletes, Category:Authors, Category:Entertainers, Category:Military personnel, Category:Musicians, Category:Scientists, all of which are comparably categorized on wikipedia, however, I am not sure if Category:Time travellers and Category:Religious figures exactly fits this mold. Then of course our dabo girls, bartenders ect would fall in the main cat. --Alan del Beccio 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :Or how about Category:Vocations, with a subcategory of Avocations implied, but not explicitly broken out? -- Renegade54 20:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :: Well, I based this on my research of Wikipedia's category tree and although they have many more branches, what I presented above was a "trimmed" down version of what they had that seems most efficient.-- Alan del Beccio 23:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :::Ok, let's stick with the trimmed-down Wikipedia category tree, then. If listing hobbies under Category:Occupations really bothers you (and I understand how it might), we could always create a Category:Hobbies (assuming there are enough to justify it). -- Renegade54 23:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ::::As I stated above, can we not have a category for occupations and a sub-category for positions, as well as a category for titles and a sub-cat for ranks? --From Andoria with Love 07:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Category:Heads of state As a way to link all of those referenced in Chancellor of the Klingon High Council, Praetor, President of the United States and so on. --Alan del Beccio 17:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC) *'Support', assuming this will be a subcategory to Category:Titles. Kennelly 19:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC) ** Actually, no, we have the title thing figured out and I believe there is a difference between the two and this is hopefully more along the lines of "occupations" (if we can hammer something out with that) because this category would include the individuals holding the position, not a category including all of the titles held by heads of state--not to say that isn't feasable as well. --Alan del Beccio 23:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC) *'Support', but probably better suited as a sub-cat for Category:Occupations, if that ever gets created. --From Andoria with Love 07:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Spacecraft categories There are many problems with the way spacecraft are catogorized. Many spacecraft that do not qualify as starships, like Apollo 11 and Enterprise (OV-101), are in Category:Starships and linked to Starship. Also, Category:Starships is a sub-cat of Category:Starship classifications, which just seems stupid. Category:Starship classifications itself contains unqualified members. Also, the same problem as the lists of individuals, categories like Klingon starships are not linked to anything else Klingon. That is, however, a problem outside the scope of the changes I am proposing. I propose that the spacecraft categories be restructured like so: * Category:Technology? ** Category:Spacecraft *** Category:Probes **** Voyager 6, Nomad, Friendship 1, MIDAS array,... *** Category:Manned Crewed spacecraft **** Ares IV, Orbital 1, Enterprise (OV-101),... **** Category:Starships **** Category:Shuttles (although many shuttles basically qualify as starships) **** Category:Space stations Comments? --Bp 18:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC) :This is a big problem. In addition to the examples that Bp pointed out, there are also a number of sublight ships that have been lumped into other "starship" categories. For example, the Bajoran interceptor is in Category:Bajoran starship classes, which makes no sense, as it is not a starship. Our entire system for categorizing space vehicles of all kinds is in need of serious work. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC) * Our category tree is really only now getting hammered out, so with regards of the starship classification category, where it is is really just a placeholder until we can get our ducks in a row. With that said, we had this discussion some time ago, regarding the SS Botany Bay, which is apparently something you've both overlooked, considering the fact that it is on the discussion page for the category in question. There, this site, and Cid too, has agreed that a starship is defined as any ship capable of space travel. Although my argument at the time originally paralleled yours, the fact remains, this sites definition of a starship remains the same: "a type of vehicle that is capable of supporting a crew traveling over interstellar distances." Which I've come to understand as acceptable. Now regardless if it is warp capable or not, and without limitiations on the distance of how "capable of..traveling over instellar distances" it is, if it can travel in space, whether faster or slower than the speed of light, it is still a starship. I would however, like to add, that I would not be opposed to a subcategory of starships for a "sublight starships" category, but I don't like the "manned spacecraft" qualifier riff raff. --Alan del Beccio 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) **There is nothing "interstellar" about Ares IV, Orbital 1, or Enterprise (OV-101). Orbital 1, or Enterprise (OV-101) can't even travel to another planet, let alone another star system. Also, probes do not fit into starships, thats why they are classified in spacecraft in the proposal. I read the talk page you mentioned, and there was no real conclusion. Also, you didn't really address the problem of Starship being a Starship classification. --Bp 04:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC) *Thanks for linking that past discussion, Alan. However, I'd like to point out that the definition on Starship itself has changed since then, from "most are FTL" to "are FTL". At the moment, I can't really tell if this is because some evidence has been brought up in the past 18 months to contradict the former definition, or if someone just felt like changing that - however, the definition should be consistent between this page and its use in a category. Also, Bp is correct, any vessel that isn't even "interstellar" (FTL or not) shouldn't be on that list according to the current definition. Morale of this story: Find a consistent definition of "starship" first, and then change categorization accordingly. :) -- Cid Highwind 09:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC) *Partial oppose: we're currently having a discussion on IRC (Bp and me), and we obviously disagree on what exactly "craft" means. I think that in the term "spacecraft", "craft" refers to "boat, ship" specifically, whereas Bp thinks that it's rather the definition of "being crafted" that applies here. Using his POV, "space station" would be a valid sub of "spacecraft" (but so would many other things that are crafted and in space), using my POV, it obviously wouldn't and should be a sub of "Technology" instead, just as it is at the moment. So, for the moment, I'm opposing the proposed "Space station" categorization. Help us out, here... ;) -- Cid Highwind 10:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ** "Craft" refers to a skill. Writing is a craft, painting is a craft. An aircraft, or watercraft is called that becuase it was skillfully designed to operate in the air or on the water. A space station is a spacecraft in the same way. The word "spacecraft" by itself does not imply that the object moves, only that it was designed for operation in space. Probes, Ships, Stations all fall into that category. --Bp 10:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ***What is Bp on about? Craft refers to boat or ship, I don't know what has him thinking otherwise. --OuroborosCobra talk 10:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ****To clarifiy, "craft" can refer to both, "a skill" and "boat, ship (also plural)", depending on context - see, for example this dictionary.com page. Words can have more than one meaning, obviously... it's just the question which one applies in this context, and I still believe it is the definition of a craft being "a ship or other vessel (#5)". -- Cid Highwind 11:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC) *****But the ship or vessel was originally called a craft because of it's skilled design and construction, not it's movement. They are two meanings, but the second meaning is derived from the first. The word craft used in aircraft, watercraft, spacecraft does not mean movement, only design and construction for the specific purpose of air or water or space operation. That the operation of a ship, one type of craft, requires movement does not mean that all *craft NEED to move. --Bp 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC) :::I decided to look in a dictionary, and I think you are wrong Bp: ::::a vehicle or device designed for '''travel' or operation outside the earth's atmosphere'' :::Deep Space 9 was not designed for travel. Spacedock does not travel. ISS does not travel. Space Stations do not travel any more than your local gas station travels. They are something you go to, not something that you use to go around in. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ::::"A vehicle or device designed for travel or operation". Your dictionary definition already agrees with me. A space station is designed for operation outside the Earth's atmosphere. --Bp 06:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC) :::To quote a particularly eloquente Gen. Anthony Clement McAuliffe, "NUTS!" --OuroborosCobra talk 06:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ---- For the record: I still don't like "spacecraft" itself, but apparently it is used for stations. I haven't said anything about "manned" spacecraft (that was Alan), but now that I was made aware of it I agree, it sounds stupid. "Crewed" isn't better, though - among other things, because it would also include the other subcategories "starships", "shuttles" and "space stations". Just leave that category out completely (yes, that's a definitive oppose) and sort all "other" items to the main category. More later, after I had some sleep... :) -- Cid Highwind 02:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC) * I think this discussion would be better moved/held at talk:Starship because what seems clear here is that we have yet to be able to define our "craft". --Alan del Beccio 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Production POV categories Novel series I'm not familiar enough with the way the novels are laid out, but similar to the TV series category (if we have one), this would be for the "big picture" articles that contain the list of novels. Possibly even subcategories for individual novel series if there are enough of them to justify a new category. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 07:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC) * Support --Alan del Beccio 10:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC) * Support, though since the TV series only have the "Star Trek" category on them, maybe just make it a more generic "Series" category? - AJ Halliwell 09:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Media companies * For all publication, movie, television or other media companies that produce or reproduce Star Trek material. This would be something of a 'catch all' category for things that appear (down the category tree) from wikipedias Media companies category. --Alan del Beccio 15:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :There is already a Category:Production companies - Philoust123 16:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC) :: ...which is limited to just production companies. This category suggestion is to include publication companies, companies that make games, television channels that air the series, etc. --Alan del Beccio 16:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Production Stuff Artists ;Category:Production artists Another sub-category of Category:Production staff for such people as artists, whether book covers, comics, or set decoration. -- Sulfur 12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC) :Comment: This might be better suited as its own seperate category if its going to be for books and the like, as those products are seperate from those officially licensed by Paramount and therefore not involving the production staff from the shows or films. --From Andoria with Love 07:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC) The other possibility there is to have a couple of "artist" categories, one for books, comics, etc (which are still officially licensed by Paramount), and one for the set decorators, painters, etc. Regardless, we do need one for artists, we have a right stack of them now. -- Sulfur 11:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC) * I almost did it, but you know, it just won't work with this name. These individuals are not really involved in the actual production of the Star Trek series; they are all non-canon supplemental contributors. --Alan del Beccio 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Maintenance categories MA Campaigns I think there should be provisionnal categories for specific campaigns : Unnamed people : For example, looking for all the unnamed people on a serie. I presume that a bot can put this campaign category on all the episodes of TNG for example. In that case, when someone is watching a TNG episode, he knows he should look carefully at the unnamed people to see if they are all listed. After adding the unlisted one, he then removes this category. At the end, when this category is empty, the campaign is over and we know for sure, that all this people are listed, because for the moment, we don't know which episodes are ckecked or not. - Philoust123 15:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC) :Well, we'd only know that for each episode there's someone who believes that he found all possible "unnamed people" (or whatever it is we're looking for at the moment, and that's not even counting mild vandalism by simply removing these tags unchecked). However, these might be useful tools, but on the other hand, I really don't want to see yet another message template or admin category on an article ("oppose"), and if this proposal goes through, I think we all now well that it won't stop at one or two of those categories. What about restricting this to the episode talk pages, I'd support that? That way, someone who wants to take part in this campaign can find episodes just as easily while there won't be an additional distracting message for someone who actually just wants to read about the episode... -- Cid Highwind 10:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Category:Real world POV To put on the "RealWorld" template, as I've seen it pop up on several articles that it shouldn't, and as far as I can tell There's no way to keep track of where it is. - AJ Halliwell 06:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :We already have Category:Star Trek, a category that was first suggested as Category for "Meta-Trek" (name to be found), then agreed upon using that name as production information category, for all "out of universe" POV articles about the franchise. The "Realworld" template also was initially suggested as a template for "Meta-Trek" articles, so that template and the existing category should be placed on the same pages - ideally by replacing existing category links with the template first and then adding the category to the template. I oppose creating yet another category just because there's a controversy about what exactly might constitute "Meta-Trek"... -- Cid Highwind 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :Note: The "Star Trek" category already has several sub-categories, so perhaps it should not be added automatically by the template. It's safe to say, however, that any article that is in "Star Trek", or a subcategory of that, should probably have the "Meta Trek"/"Production"/"Realworld" template. -- Cid Highwind 11:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Well, I wasn't involved in that particular political debate- I just want a way to see what pages have the Template on them (such as the PNA articles) because I know of at least two episodes they've been added to, several novels, and some things that should be from an In-universe POV. (IE: If someone put the Realworld template on Cardassia.) I know Cardassia doesn't constitute "Meta-Trek"... - AJ Halliwell 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC) :And now you're officially a part of that debate... because others think that this template should be added to all novel and episode pages, for example. Congratulations... ;) :On the other hand, I don't think categories are generally a good idea if the rationale for them is "to find out on which pages a template doesn't belong". I think the "What links here" of that template would be a much better tool (that doesn't confuse readers at the same time) in this case. -- Cid Highwind 11:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Template categories Not my suggestion, but taken from Category talk:Templates: *Category:Memory Alpha templates (Category:Templates needs to be moved there) *Category:Memory Alpha navigational templates (Category:Navigational templates needs to be moved there) *Category:Memory Alpha maintenance templates *Category:Memory Alpha episode templates (although I personally don't know what this might be...) -- Cid Highwind 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC) :Support! (at least the first 3) -- Renegade54 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC) * Mental note: It should be noted that we have quite a few unused templates that are just lounging around that should be saved or tossed at some point--Alan del Beccio 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC) :First three categories apparently accepted, discussion as of this point copied to Category talk:Memory Alpha templates. Keeping this here to further discuss the final suggestion. -- Cid Highwind 10:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Sub-categories for Category:Memory Alpha images Production staff We seem to have a growing number images for the production staff (such as Image:Maggie Schpak.jpg) so I suggest "Category:Memory Alpha images (production staff)" or (Production staff), or something similar. - AJ Halliwell 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC) * I wonder if we should broaden the scope of this so as to include all images of individuals who are not "in character". I notice there is an image of Avery Brooks on his page of him looking all bad-ass like Shaft (shut yo' mouth!) that really doesn't fit into any of the categories we currently have, including this suggestion. --Alan del Beccio 23:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC) * Support disambiguating non-character images of individuals in this fashion. --From Andoria with Love 07:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)